[asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 16 May 2008 11:00:09 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> >> > Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own
> >> > hardware. That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of
> >> > variables).
> >>
> >> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.
> >
> > Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure
> > the publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own
> > sales, well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your
> > sales.  You could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing. 
> > Why don't you do that?
>
> Sales in general.  You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few
> basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway,
> then build from there.  Most companies do this.

Precisely.  The numbers Digium gives are geared to their own machines.

> >> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
> >> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
> >> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
> >> on usage.
> >
> > Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
> > job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of
> > calls that a particular machine could handle, but from a support
> > perspective, it doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically
> > handle, it matters how many it could handle in the particular
> > installation in a supportable configuration (those are all those pesky
> > variables we've been talking about).
>
> Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were
> brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and
> Enterprise software and support.  It is all about money.  I didn't
> fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Now who's on the attack here?  Instead of taking issue with the logic, you're
personally attacking me, and I do take offense.  The logic is sound, and it is
precisely the reason why we say "X machine supports Y users".  It makes it
easier for the support department, that they don't have to deal with edge
cases of "Well, if you're doing the maximum transcoding AND recording AND
conferences AND a few other things, then maybe it won't support Y users."
No, we want the numbers solid; we never want it to be said that we sold what
we could not support.

-- 
Tilghman